John Carmichael

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the House today regarding Canada's foreign investment review regime. I also note that I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex this afternoon.

On Friday, December 7, the Prime Minister made an important announcement about how the process will change with respect to proposed transactions by state-owned enterprises. The changes reflect concerns raised by an evolving investment environment where state-owned enterprises have increased in size, activity and their interest in Canada's natural resources.

I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry because this change shows that the government continues to stand up for Canadians.

The announcement of last Friday certainly was not a bolt out of the blue. This government first signalled its concern about the role of state-owned enterprises in 2006 as part of its Advantage Canada plan. Furthermore, it reflects the practice of the government to ensure that the foreign investment review regime evolves along with the changing nature of foreign investment.

It is worth recalling that the economic history of Canada shows that the investment regime has evolved as different governments have responded to shifts in global economic power that have altered the pattern of foreign direct investment.

In the 1970s, it was the economic power of the United States and Europe that led to calls for a regime to review acquisitions of Canadian business. This eventually led to Parliament's approval of the Foreign Investment Review Act, or FIRA, and the creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency in 1975.

FIRA's stated purpose was to ensure that control of Canadian businesses or the establishment of new businesses under non-Canadians would only be permitted were they likely to be of significant benefit to Canada. The agency was tasked with reviewing proposed transactions to ensure that they met that objective.

FIRA specified factors that were to be taken into account when reviewing a proposed transaction. Briefly, these included the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians; productivity, efficiency, technological development, product innovation and variety; competition in Canada; and compatibility with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, including the policies of the provinces likely to be affected.

FIRA provided the government significant powers, including permitting the responsible minister to investigate companies, to enter premises and search for evidence, and to require the investor to be examined under oath. Critics said that the FIRA process was overly rigid and too secretive. For example, the agency did not have to report its grounds for decision-making in particular cases.

The threshold for review under FIRA was also very low. Any business with assets of more than $300,000 and revenue of more than $3 million was subject to the act. The review process was long and cumbersome. On average, it took six months, and often in excess of a year. It often increased transaction costs.

In 1985, Parliament approved the replacement of FIRA with the Investment Canada Act. Furthermore, the Foreign Investment Review Agency was replaced with a new agency, Investment Canada.

The new mandate under the ICA was to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributed to economic growth and employment opportunities, and to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians to ensure such benefits to Canada.

As I alluded to earlier, the criteria for foreign investment under the ICA were substantially similar to those under FIRA, with the addition of a factor focused on Canada's ability to compete in world markets. This addition was key, because it recognized the changing economic environment where global competitiveness was going to matter to countries and to Canada's economic well-being.

The ICA era differed immediately from the FIRA era because of its different purposes. The ICA ensured that Canada was open for business with more realistic thresholds for review and shorter times for the completion of reviews.

The impact of the changes under the ICA cannot be overstated. Foreign investment rebounded significantly. Canada's share of inward foreign direct investment stock, that is the Canadian assets owned by non-Canadians, has risen steadily since the ICA. Our proportion of inward foreign direct investment stock to our gross domestic product has also increased significantly.

Canada continues to attract more than its share of global foreign investment, and that is a good thing for Canadians. Foreign investment promotes growth, employment and innovation here at home, as well as access to new markets and global supply chains abroad. Foreign investment brings some of the most productive and successful firms in the world to Canada and results in some of the highest paying jobs for Canadians.

Foreign direct investment, both into Canada and by Canadian firms abroad, is a win-win for our economy. With this in mind, Canada needs to make it clear that we are open for business and welcome foreign investment. Let me repeat: Canada is open for business and welcomes foreign investment. Our government is committed to sending the message to investors around the world that Canada is a safe and stable place to invest and do business. However, we also need to recognize that as the world changes and investment trends evolve, we need to evolve too.

The Prime Minister's announcement last Friday evening regarding the review of proposed investment by foreign state-owned enterprises is only the latest example of this government standing up for Canadians. This government acted previously to protect Canadian interests when it came to foreign investment. In fact, we have been the most active government since the introduction in 1985 of the Investment Canada to ensure that the foreign investment that comes to Canada actually benefits hard-working Canadians.

My hon. colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex will now highlight some of the recent actions our government has taken to keep the Investment Canada Act framework relevant to emerging economic reality.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with only 20 days left until Christmas, Canadians, myself included, are scrambling around trying to find the perfect gifts for the perfect price. Although it may be a chaotic time, in the end it is well worth it, with the promise of quality time with family and friends.

What we also know about this time of year is that it can be very costly for Canadians. Families will often have to budget strictly and smartly to ensure they have everything they need and still be able to pay the bills.

Unfortunately, the NDP members are not in tune with Canadians. They do not understand that with a $21 billion carbon tax and a 1% increase in the GST, they would raise the price on everything.

We can imagine a family, already struggling to budget for Christmas, met with the NDP tax hikes on all the gifts, ingredients and supplies they need. The NDP is out of touch with Canadians.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has promoted a job-killing carbon tax. Clearly, for small and medium businesses, that would be the demise of our economy.

I wonder if my colleague would speak to some of the initiatives in a little greater depth, such as reducing taxes for small and medium enterprises, the pooled registered pension plan, and other incentives that help small businesses thrive.

I wonder if she would address some of those issues in a little greater depth and talk about what this government is doing to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses thrive in this country.

[Labour, December 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the delegation of Canadian Union of Postal Workers' big union bosses returned from the world social forum free Palestine conference in sunny Rio. This radical political conference is dedicated to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish homeland and promotes Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestine.

Yesterday, the NDP leader refused to condemn this misuse of public funds by his big union bosses. Will the Government of Canada condemn the misuse of public funds?

[Foreign Affairs, November 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, despite repeated calls from the international community not to proceed, the Palestinian Authority is expected to seek non-member observer state status tomorrow at the UN General Assembly. I am extremely concerned by these actions, which will unfortunately do nothing more than to move the parties away from a negotiated settlement.

Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on our government's position on these steps and where he will be tomorrow?

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the families in need act is clearly a compassionate act that is long overdue. I am delighted to be in the House today to hear members of all parties agree that they are in support of this compassionate and necessary legislation.

As a parent three times and a grandparent of four little ones, I cannot imagine the stress on a family when confronted with a missing or murdered child. We have all been touched in the House. I doubt there is anyone who has not been touched by someone who has lost a child. We have seen the grief and the difficulties the families face.

This bill addresses important needs to take certain issues off the table so families can focus on the stress at hand of dealing with a missing or murdered child and the grief that goes with it.

I would like to commend my colleague for his speech this morning. I felt he addressed the issues very well and obviously with great compassion. We have talked about job security, but would the member perhaps go a little deeper on the issue surrounding federal income support? It is something that is very important in helping families to deal with these issues at such a time as they are being confronted with them.

[Veterans, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in this Veterans Week, I want to profile Mr. John Bennett, a resident of the veterans wing at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in my riding of Don Valley West in Toronto.

John Bennett was trained as an artist and has been a gifted painter all his life. He served as a camouflage officer during World War II and landed on the beaches of Normandy 10 days after D-Day. For the next two years, he served his country in Europe, all the while painting what he saw.

In October, 78 of Mr. Bennett's war-time water colours were accepted into the permanent collection of the National War Museum here in Ottawa. John, his family and five other veterans from Sunnybrook came to Ottawa to tour the War Museum, the National Gallery and Parliament Hill. On November 11, I will represent our government at the annual Remembrance Day ceremony at Sunnybrook. I encourage all Canadians to attend a ceremony in their community, talk to a veteran, listen to their stories and thank them.

Lest we forget.

[Baseball World Series, October 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago today, the Toronto Blue Jays travelled to Atlanta to take on the Atlanta Braves in game 6 of the World Series. After a gruelling 11 innings, the Jays beat the Braves 4 to 3 and won their first World Series. This was a joyous occasion not only for people from Don Valley West in Toronto but for all Canadians.

Unfortunately, when we look back on the nineties, we also remember the then NDP government and its failed leader's devastation of the Ontario economy. Ontarians saw sky-high taxes, sky-high unemployment and sky-high debt. All proof that NDP policies simply are not good for the economy. The federal NDP's policies are similar: high taxes and fewer jobs.

The NDP leader's proposed carbon tax would raise the price on everything, leaving Canadians with less money to spend on the things they love, like baseball.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, Conservative MPs will return to our ridings and we will proudly tell our constituents that we will stand up for their interests and against the NDP's $20 billion carbon tax.

On page 4 of its election platform, the NDP clearly laid out its new tax, which would raise the price of everything and raise billions in new revenues from Canadians.

Earlier this year, the NDP leader said that his new carbon tax plan “will produce billions”.

As we travel throughout our ridings to various events this weekend, and in my riding of Don Valley West I will be listening to my local constituents' concerns over the NDP leader's $20 billion carbon tax plan.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues have been abundantly clear that the Minister of Industry has undertaken a full review of this transaction and it is his intent to bring forward a decision in the next period of time.

To the member's statement, no, nothing is completed or committed to at this point. However, I would like to bring to his attention, as he talks about security, some changes that our government has brought to the Investment Canada Act over the last number of years.

In 2007, there were changes to ensure that state-owned enterprises adhere to Canadian standards of corporate governance and operate according to commercial principles.

In 2009, there were provisions for a national security review under the Investment Canada Act. It is looked after and taken care of. It is going to be done.

In 2012, there were changes to allow the ministers of industry and Canadian heritage to communicate more information on the review process.

I think that covers it.